TraditionAndRevolution.freeforums.org

Hi Troy,

You state that, "the 'national' in National-Anarchism relates, not to nationalism or any kind of nation-state, but to ethnicity. National-Anarchism, then, is simply a form of racial or tribal anarchism." In which case I would suggest that in view of the antipathy with which organisation along 'national' lines is viewed by 'National' Anarchists, they should cease describing their ideology using a concept that you suggest is "inevitably tied in with the internationalist system" and instead describe themselves more accurately as 'Racial' or 'Tribal' Anarchists.

The scenario that you envisage of nation states collapsing and being replaced by small autonomous communities for several centuries, only has credibility as long as all nation states collapse simultaneously all over the world. This is however not very likely.

A far more likely scenario is one in which certain nation states start to collapse and are therefore left vulnerable, surrounded by other nation states, some of which will have no sympathy for them and will seek to take advantage of their plight.

Imagine for a moment a scenario in which most Western countries begin to collapse, while large Asian nations like China and India remain relatively intact. If we in the West get swept away on a wave of enthusiasm for Tribal Anarchism, forming small autonomous communities and living like Hobbits in the Shire, there would be nothing to stop an imperialist China or India, armed with WMD and with massive standing armies, from marching over Europe taking our land and our resources and exterminating/ enslaving our people as they go.

In such a scenario, it would be imperative that we European peoples should re-organise ourselves into groupings that would have sufficient critical mass, such that we could raise armies sufficient to deter aggression and such that we would have the capability of presenting a credible nuclear deterrent also. In a world of rapidly diminishing natural resources, coupled with spiralling Third World populations, security considerations alone would drive us towards organisational structures that would at least be the nation state under a different name.

The term 'National-Anarchism' was adopted very early on when we were evolving from a revolutionary nationalist organisation into a fully-blown Anarchist current which, in part, had been influenced by Richard Hunt's ideas about the 'natural society'. The term 'tribalism' is more accurate, of course, but in the meantime we have built up a good network of contacts and supporters which, coupled with the fact that two variants of National-Anarchism emerged at the same time in both France and Germany, meant that it has since become the name by which we are now widely recognised. The Left, too, understands that we are racial separatists and therefore it's not really a problem for us to retain the 'national' part of the term when it is clear that we are talking about ethnicity itself and not the existing boundaries and borders.

The reason I believe that all nation-states will collapse, is because from an economic perspective they are inextricably bound up with the same internationalist system. It's all down to resources and the fact that we live in a dangerously ageing society has led to a mass influx of immigrants which, in the view of the capitalists at the helm, will somehow help to regenerate the economy. Indeed, when the population of a country is dying in large numbers and failing to be replenished in any significant manner, presumably you need fresh blood for the factories and offices. But this, in reality, is simply a last desperate throw of the dice and, in addition to this, there are only so many wars that you can fight at the same time or countries that can be stripped of their resources. Not to mention the serious ecological consequences of it all.

Even if China and India survive to a certain extent, the capitalists have seen the writing on the wall and have been switching their interests from Europe and North America to Asia for some time now. But even China and India will find themselves sucked under in the end, the earth simply doesn't have enough resources to cope with the ridiculous population levels.

So it wouldn't surprise me if another country or three did sweep in to take control of our plight, but I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't band together in order to see off any potential invaders. My real point is that we will, by that time, be in the midst of a huge socio-economic catastrophy and therefore our options will be extremely limited. Who knows, perhaps the yellow hordes will all descend upon us, prior to collapsing themselves. But none of us can deny that the West is about to collapse - even if it experiences several more booms and slumps prior to that - but we certainly won't be able to organise on the level of a nation-state because the governmental infrastructure will have been obliterated and things will be in total chaos. You contend that we'll be able to organise under a different name. Perhaps that will happen to some extent, yes, but it won't be under the aegis of any recognisable form of statism. On the other hand, networking and some kind of co-ordination between National-Anarchist communities is absolutely essential.

Finally, despite this doom and gloom, I strongly feel that this degenerative process is necessary and that something positive will come out of it all. Some people may actually start to wake up and do things for themserlves for a change, instead of relying on the State.

Reading through this, I am still not sure what is meant by National-Anarchism. Where I come from, we are wary of anything that ends in 'ism'.

We manage to live a more traditional lifestyle here in south central Missouri. By traditional I mean family, community, and county. We have a centralized government (county seat), and each community (town) has it's own government and way of doing things. This pretty much governs our daily lives.

Then we have the state of Missouri, which basically attempts to see to the welfare of all the counties, and then the Federal government, which originally was meant to be a central hub for all the states to form a confederation under so as to provide a means of competing both economically and militarily with nations more economically and militarily viable than our own state.

Whether barter or currency, the growth has been a necessary one to allow for survival of the individual communities in a world of nations much more powerful than our community. I really do not see how any community can survive without some type of centralized government. The problem being that the fedgov has become too powerful in terms of it's member states. The central governments are meant to operate in the best interests of their communities, without which there would be no central government due to the fact that taxpayers' dollars pay their wages and for various programs and agencies, etc.

This is where corruption comes in. I'll need to continue this later as I have one of those long days to tend to.

Just to remark upon what Larry says, I too fail to envisage how --both pragmatically and amidst the international political system under which we unfortunately live-- we can possibly take cognizance of National-Anarchism or, indeed, any tangible notions freedom, being successful with the threat from outside sources (countries and peoples in opposition).

Use the analogy of the game of chess when thinking of the following:

I have previously stated that the exchange of Capitalist liberal democracy with National-Anarchism must be one founded on the pretext of TRANSITION and the subsequent smart, gradual moves. That is to say, it is nigh on impossible to go from one "extreme" to the other without a process of readjustment and political reconfiguration --we cannot achieve check-mate while the opposition has numerable and valuable pieces on the board.

Troy, I have disclosed to you previously, in exchanges on Facebook, that I feel TRANSITION is the key word, the ultimate move in this game to achieve the aim of freedom.

If you recall, I suggested the first stage of this would be Nationalism; thereafter it would be a gradual decentralisation and readjustment.

Very tentatively, I have the following in mind. I am no exceptional ideologue, but I like to think that Machiavellian pragmatism ought to elevate us.

1) Nationalist government comes to power -either democratically or by Coup d'état (which I would not frown upon -see my request for clartification of your position on the British Army, Troy);

2) Nationalist government retakes control of industry and finance. The State thus acts (TEMPORARILY) as arbiter of funds, possessions, and power from Capitalists to the People;

3) Gradually (with the confidence in the loyalty of its People) the State relinquishes said industry and finance to neo-feudal guild system and workers co-operatives (after, of course, a whole new re-education programme that would fulfil the People and serve them well in the new politic to which they are by that stage well-adjusted);

4) The State becomes mostly obsolete, focussing its attention on the international climate and ensuring integrity of its borders, acting in conjunction with a quadrupled British Army that has now has the raison d'être of defending the many homogeneous autonomous collectives that comprise artisans, guild systems and workers co-operatives under locally-comprised citizens' militias headed by a neo-feudal body politic that serves not an international body but the body and very essence of the blood and sacrifice that is inherent in the British Isles.

I have never suggested that we will immediately switch from Capitalism to National-Anarchism, that just won't happen. National-Anarchists have to start forming alternative communities now, under Capitalism, so that we can be in a position of strength when the collapse does happen and the rest of the population are running around like headless chickens without any sense of direction. However, even my use of the term 'collapse' is not designed to convey a sense of immediacy. The State will gradually wither away and die, this could happen over many years as people are gradually forced to take back control of their lives in the wake of an incompetent education system, increasing food and fuel shortages, the erosion and inefficiency of the National Health Service etc. etc.

I am not completely ruling out the fact that we may see what you describe as a 'nationalist' government, but I prefer to use the term 'Fascist'. Furthermore, for a 'nationalist' government to come to power it will have had to compromise substancially and, therefore, will have been stripped of its nationalistic features to a large extent. Indeed, Capitalists may need a Fascist government in order to (a) implement extreme social or totalitarian control in a fast-deteriorating situation, and (b) repatriate 'difficult' Muslims who refuse to integrate or accept Western values. I'm only speculating as far as the second point is concerned, of course, but the Establishment controls all the main parties and that includes the BNP. It wears many different masks and will do whatever it has to do in order to maintain a firm grip on power. That which is bad for business must be crushed. This is why people should never be surprised when Communists morph into Capitalists or vice-versa, or when Big Business ends up financing so-called 'extremists' such as Hitler and Mussolini. Meanwhile, the power-hungry politicians do the same in order to get themselves into that position in the first place. But I certainly won't be supporting any kind of 'nationalist' government because I know what it will lead to and as an Anarchist I completely oppose fascism and statism of all kinds. Finally, it should be pointed out that we don't HAVE a recognisable 'nation' any more. There is a specific territory controlled by the State, of course, but nationhood is being constantly redefined and is now based on citizenship rather than ethnicity.

Sound's like the "fading away of the state" the Communists were hoping for but never happened in practice. Once an elite has power it can never bring itself to voluntarily surrender it, or at least I don't know of any examples of it happening.

On the subject of defense in a hypothetical National Anarchist nation.

I base some of my thoughts on my experiences in Iraq where I worked on military supply convoys as a private contractor. Yeah I know its unethical.......

Firstly we have to consider the ability of the current economic and political arrangements to defend the nation should that be necessary. The fact is that most Western European nations have militaries far too small to stop a serious belligerent with conventional weapons anyway. The UK, for example, has I guess about 150,000 military personal in all services including reservists and none combat personnel. That's not enough to stop, say, the Russians or Americans never mind the Indians or the Chinese.

In fact I believe the principle role of our armed forces is as a last resort of the Establishment should it's "civil" forces fail it since they don't appear capable of much more than that. And by the way whether they are sufficient for that job is seriously questionable.

Moreover it appears that the MO of at least Western forces has become obsolete with the advent of 4th generation warfare. Perhaps a sufficiently ruthless operated Western style Army could put down a country like Iraq, but I doubt it. The problem lies in the asymmetrical nature of the forces, sure a platoon or company of "war fighting" troops could inflict hugely disproportionate casualties in absolute numbers however in economic terms the relatively few casualties they take in return exceed the monetary value of those they killed. It takes almost nothing to equip a kid with an AK, a Marine is an expensive asset. Once the cost of the occupation exceeds the value of the assets it capable of controlling (remembering they are likely to be degraded by an insurgency) then any capitalist organised force is defeated.

As it is taking into account the poor morale of Western populations and elites and their unwillingness to take casualties in any number at all it seems unlikely that a Western Army, or even all of them, possess much offensive capability except against other industrial states. Their defensive capabilities might be greater, but surely not of an entirely different order?

The alternative is an armed citizenry which requires no state to maintain or organise it, indeed it takes a state to prevent it happening of its own accord. Such a force would number tens of millions, be familiar with the local terrain, and have extensive support networks in local communities.

Sure such a system would not be invincible to a sufficiently determined aggressor if they are possessed of massive resources (and they would need massive resources which are only available to a select few industrialized states currently never mind in the future) and totally be oblivious to causalities taken and inflicted. They're best strategy would be to break the morale of the target population as the Soviets did in Hungary and Czechoslovakia and the West in Yugoslavia. However should they fail to do this then they are facing a protracted, expensive and bloody conflict. Examples would include Afghanistan (twice, or maybe three times), Vietnam and Iraq all of which the Industrial power lost and the Chechen conflict which was the most Pyrrhic of Pyrrhic victories.

Moreover we must factor into the equation that it seems unlikely that we can maintain our conventional armies even if we wanted to. It may be that this discussion of conventional Vs 4th Generation is entirely moot, its 4th gen or nothing at all.

I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment of the military and what is likely to happen in the future. I believe that the regression of technology is inevitable as a result of (a) the worsening economic situation, and (b) an increasing scarcity of resources. The 4th Generation Warfare scenario is likely to happen and this is why armies across Europe are down-sizing all the time. We've seen this happen before with Ancient Rome, of course, the Centre is beginning to withdraw into itself and this will make it easier for people on the Periphery (in the Third World) - as well as those in rural areas in a more domestic sense - to chop off the exploitative tentacles one by one until the bloodsuckers have nothing more to feed on. An increasingly ageing population is also leading to a dwindling number of tax-payers, something that is disatrous for any State wishing to maintain a grip on its population, let alone in terms of fulfilling its imperialistic aspirations abroad. So yes, a decentralised armed militia will be the result of this process and eventually people - and by people, I mean ordinary citizens - will need to network with other localities in order to safeguard both themselves and their families. It's impossible to predict the exact form this process will take, particularly as it is likely to arise in the midst of a defensive vacuum and total social and economic chaos, but anyone who thinks we can maintain a standing army in the future is being unrealistic. One thing is certain, those of us who do wish to survive the coming storm must begin to prepare for the worst-case scenario immediately.

I think the decline (and fall) of the Roman Empire is an apt comparision.

Particularly locally where the British population continued to have unrealistic faith and expectation in the central power long after it was obviously permanently wrecked.

(and also in all sorts of aspects, the defeat of a technological and organizationally sophisticated society by a simple tribal system and the failure of the former to comprehend the possibility until it was to late is particularly relevant)

Clearly we are already seeing the decline of the temporal authority of the state, the writ of Westminster no longer runs in large sections of the country, particularly the inner city colonies. Perversely the Establishment is falling over itself to acknowledge and encourage this process by the recognition of Sharia courts.

I think that the development of an ethos of personal and collective responsibility is absolutely critical to the likely form the successor societies of Industrial Age take. Unless significant numbers of people successful develop political consciousness and take back their independence from the state the likely outcome is a return to something along the lines of feudalism (or worse).

Taking responsibility for defense is the central aspect of this. The original formation of states came about as a result of individuals ceding their right and responsibility to defend themselves to professional warriors, eventually these warriors expanded their role to encompass everything and literally claimed those who they have been hired to protect as their personal property. A claim the modern state still maintains, which is why they reserve the right to conscript citizens.

So not only is the development of independent local collectives with the ability and right to defend themselves essential to the defense of the nation from foreign aggression but it's even more important to defend the people from the reemergence of local tyrannies.

I think that, in general, we will see a major switch of power from the State to the Community. This will result in people becoming far less dependant and actually learning to do things for themselves and that can only be a good thing. There is a downsizing process currently taking place and in many ways that began with the Poll Tax back in 1990. Governmental responsibility shifting from national to local level, although the power continued to remain at the core. Your example of the Shariah courts in the judicial sphere is also a good example. Home-schooling, too, is becoming more popular, not least because those of us who teach our children at home cost the State absolutely nothing in wages, manpower, educational facilities or teaching materials and neither do we receive any funding whatsoever for all the books and stationery that we purchase ourselves. I agree with your thoughts on defence, too. Another point worth mentioning is that whilst the State has a monopoly on arms there can be no self-determination when it comes to people defending themselves.